October Term 2003 · Docket 02-682
Does a telecom monopoly owe rivals discounted asset access under antitrust law?
Verizon argues the Telecommunications Act replaces antitrust duties. Trinko claims Verizon breached interconnection agreements.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Richard Taranto argued Verizon should not face antitrust liability.
He stated the Telecommunications Act creates a comprehensive regime.
He claimed the Act forces lawful monopolies to compete.
He argued the Sherman Act protects independently developed competition only.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 33-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 3-7
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Verizon seeks dismissal of the antitrust complaint. Trinko seeks damages for alleged market obstruction.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 33-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 17-1
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 14, 2003.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 3-7
What each side wants
Verizon wants the court to dismiss the antitrust claim.
Trinko wants the court to award damages for obstruction.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 33-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 17-1
What each side says
Verizon argues the Telecommunications Act creates a comprehensive regulatory regime.
Trinko argues Verizon breached a telephone interconnection agreement.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 33-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 17-1
What the justices asked
Does the Telecommunications Act preempt antitrust claims?
Does a monopolist owe rivals discounted asset access?
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 3-7
Why it matters
This case defines the boundary between telecom regulation and antitrust law. It determines whether monopolies must share assets with rivals. It shapes the competitive landscape for telecommunications providers.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 33-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 17-1
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 3-7
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 33-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 17-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 16, lines 5-23 — Transcript, file page 16, lines 5-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 24, lines 33-13 — Transcript, file page 24, lines 33-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-41 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 17-1 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 17-1
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.